Celts or Gauls???

[pompeynunn]

Hamlet asked : Why exactly would you include Northern Ireland, yet not the rest of Ireland? Ireland was a part of The British state for a long time, and has only been independant for less than a century.


I didn't include the Republic of Ireland in much the same way as I never included Australia, Canada, America, India, Rhodesia etc etc. At least Northern Ireland is part of the current United Kingdom, and has its flag as part of the Union Jack, which I believe is the great symbol of the (now diminishing) British Empire.

Whilst I'm still on this subject, there is a great deal of discussion in Scotland at the moment during Queen Elizabeth II's jubilee year. Many Scots are refusing to call her QEII, because Scotland has never had a QEI!

Finally, it would be nice to have a scenario of the English versus the Scots, just to keep a few of my Scottish friends happy, so that they can gain revenge on the Sassenachs!

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by pompeynunn
I didn't include the Republic of Ireland in much the same way as I never included Australia, Canada, America, India, Rhodesia etc etc. At least Northern Ireland is part of the current United Kingdom, and has its flag as part of the Union Jack, which I believe is the great symbol of the (now diminishing) British Empire.

But you missed my point: all those other areas were territories of the Empire, overseas.

Ireland was actually a part of Britain, in the same way as the Russian cities we currently have in civ 3 were a part of Russia/USSR. it would seem foolish to include one and not the other - you would be essentially setting a double standard.

 

[pompeynunn]

Originally posted by Hamlet


But you missed my point: all those other areas were territories of the Empire, overseas.

Ireland was actually a part of Britain, in the same way as the Russian cities we currently have in civ 3 were a part of Russia/USSR. it would seem foolish to include one and not the other - you would be essentially setting a double standard.

Hmm - I take your point. I have tended to think about Great Britain in previous years to include its territories. However, strictly speaking, I suppose you are right - Ireland was officially part of the British Isles, whereas the other territories were not. Therefore, I concede that the whole of Ireland could be included as part of Great Britain to keep historical accuracy - although that would p*** off a lot of Irishmen!

(Although strictly speaking, in the present day we call ourselves Great Britain and Northern Ireland - it is the United Kingdom that also includes NI. All of this causes great confusion abroad - I was once asked by a market researcher in Houston where I came from, to which I replied United Kingdom, which just drew a blank face, as did the answer Great Britain. The only answer she seemed to recognise was England!)

All of this historical discussion is great isn't it - something to throw back at all those people who say that the brains of gamers rot due to lack of stimulation! Still can't convince the wife of the merits of PC games though...

 

[PCHighway]

Originally posted by pompeynunn



Boy, do you Yanks have a skewed view of British history!

You have no idea

I'm English living in Scotland, and if I suggested that modern Scots are really English to anybody up here, I would be lucky to get out of the pub alive! I still can't get used to watching an England football match in a pub with Scots cheering on the other team. Ireland is really English? Well, you're having a joke aren't you?

As for the Celtic civs, they were one of the few civs that managed to withstand the onslaught of Rome.

Heres where I get to my point, the MAIN reason Rome was so p*ssed at the celts was because they had sacked it earlier. The Romans never forgave them. The romans atleast, considered the Gauls and Celts to be of the same backround.

Why do you think they built Hadrian's wall? They couldn't conquer Scotland, so built a wall to 'keep those nasty barbarians out'.

Im as poud as my Scottish\Irish\English backround as anyone. But if ANY civilization Tried to conquer all of Europe, (A 'Barbarian' Europe or not) Well lets just say They wouldnt get very far.
My point is, if Rome attacked Scotland, with all they had How long do you think it would have lasted?!??!?!?

The Celts managed to withstand the 'superior English' for 2 millenia - not bad for such a backward civ eh?

Not bad, not bad at all

(God, how I'm hating all this sticking up for the Jocks!)

Your not alone there

Finally, you say: "It would be much more fun if Dublin, Glasgow, Syndney, Toronto were in the the English city list. Much more realistic too." Following this logic then, can we also include New York, Washington etc. etc. in our English civ as well - rather weakens your argument doesn't it?

I dont agree And I could make some arguments... (I mean discussions Hippo, discussions ) but I wont because im already off topic.

Personally, I would rather England was replaced by Great Britain, because it was Great Britain which was the real global power, not just England, and that would then include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (but note, not the Republic of Ireland!). That would then weaken the case for a Celtic Civ though. Much as I like the idea of Celtic Civ,

there are already too many European Civs,

We are talking about the Gauls and the Kelts here, If there has to be one (which i want) I would prefer the Celts.

especially if we include the Vikings

Scandinavians

and Spain as potential new civs.
It would be nice to have some more African, South American or Asian civs instead.

But Firaxis has eight new civs to put in Theres room.

 

[Parsifal]

Originally posted by pompeynunn



Boy, do you Yanks have a skewed view of British history!

I'm English living in Scotland, and if I suggested that modern Scots are really English to anybody up here, I would be lucky to get out of the pub alive! I still can't get used to watching an England football match in a pub with Scots cheering on the other team. Ireland is really English? Well, you're having a joke aren't you?

As for the Celtic civs, they were one of the few civs that managed to withstand the onslaught of Rome. Why do you think they built Hadrian's wall? They couldn't conquer Scotland, so built a wall to 'keep those nasty barbarians out'. The Celts managed to withstand the 'superior English' for 2 millenia - not bad for such a backward civ eh? (God, how I'm hating all this sticking up for the Jocks!)

Finally, you say: "It would be much more fun if Dublin, Glasgow, Syndney, Toronto were in the the English city list. Much more realistic too." Following this logic then, can we also include New York, Washington etc. etc. in our English civ as well - rather weakens your argument doesn't it?

Personally, I would rather England was replaced by Great Britain, because it was Great Britain which was the real global power, not just England, and that would then include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (but note, not the Republic of Ireland!). That would then weaken the case for a Celtic Civ though. Much as I like the idea of Celtic Civ, there are already too many European Civs, especially if we include the Vikings and Spain as potential new civs. It would be nice to have some more African, South American or Asian civs instead.

Forget Great Britain, a rose by any other name is still a rose. It doesn't have to include US cities, although I suppose it could, but the US is already a separate civ and is the most important power in the world today.

Just to end, Parsifal: if you tried to tell any Irish or Scotish person they were English you would be angling for a knuckle sandwich.

Maybe, but being violent doesn't make them right and me wrong.
All Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Australian, New Zealander, and maybe even Canadian people should throw away their delusions and just accept their Englishness...AND BE PROUD OF IT!!! Everyone else is proud of their nationality.

 

[DaSilva]

Originally posted by pompeynunn


Whilst I'm still on this subject, there is a great deal of discussion in Scotland at the moment during Queen Elizabeth II's jubilee year. Many Scots are refusing to call her QEII, because Scotland has never had a QEI!

Being a traditionalist I believe in the monarchy system but Queen Elizabeth II should not be known as Elizabeth I of Scotland. I dont see her as Scotlands monarch and many other Scots feel the same.

And her and her whole family are German anyway, with her husbands (Prince Philip) family being Greek

 

[jpowers]

Bickering about where European cultural boundaries exist and when they were invented is pointless. For centuries, Europe north of Rome was the holding pen for rejects from the Caucasus and Central Asia. Arguing over how refugees fleeing from the Mongols can be differentiated is silly. Recently, these barbarians have begun to admit their inbreeding has created a beige 'Euro' culture, and they are unifying their currencies and cultures. I recommend Firaxis dump the Celts, Gauls, Vikings, Germans, French, English, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians, Luxembourgers, Basque, Alemanni, Britanni, Gaels, Normas, Saxons, Jutes, Angles, Franks, Slavs, etc etc etc into one bucket 'Euro' culture. The UU can be the 'Delusional Empire Builder' since Europe has provided so many of those, the consequences of which the rest of the world has had to deal for the past 1500 years.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Parsifal
All Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Australian, New Zealander, and maybe even Canadian people should throw away their delusions and just accept their Englishness...AND BE PROUD OF IT!!! Everyone else is proud of their nationality.

WELSH, SCOTTISH AND IRISH PEOPLE ARE NOT ENGLISH.

THEY ARE WELSH, SCOTTISH, AND IRISH.

ENGLISH CULTURE, SCOTTISH CULTURE, IRISH CULTURE AND WELSH CULTURE ALL DEVELOPED SEPERATELY, AND ARE ALL COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. THEIR PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT, AND OF DIFFERENT HERITAGES. THEY ARE ALL FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT TO EACH OTHER.

HENCE WHY SCOTLAND HAS DIFFERENT DIALECTS, EVOLVED AS A COMPLETELY DEPERATE STATE, HAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LEGAL SYSTEM, AND HAS IT'S OWN PARLIAMENT. IT'S PEOPLE ARE SCOTTISH.

Which part of this do you not understand?

Btw, all Americans should throw away their delusions of nationhood and accept their Englishness.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Parsifal

As for the Scots, Irish and Welsh, as Celtic civs they accomplished nothing other than being too backward to withstand the superior English. The modern Irish, Scots and Welsh (along with the Canadians, Australians, etc,) should be included in the English civ.
They are all English really. It would be much more fun if Dublin, Glasgow, Syndney, Toronto were in the the English city list. Much more realistic too.

I would prefer if the American Civ appeared around the 1600s!
But it's only a game, but your worldview needs repaired, matey.

Forgetting the historically crap and skewed movie made in the USA,
William Wallace did actually give the English armies much trouble,
and almost suceeded in a general rout of English forces.
Now, that is history, read a book if you want to know more.

What I take offence to is that you make remarks about Scots
Irish and Welsh being, 'backwards'. Get real!
Scotland has achieved nothing?
What about the Scottish inventors, artists, soldiers and pioneers?
Our culture is known the world over, and we mostly supplied and
built the some of greatest naval ships in modern history!

Keep in mind, we had civilisation centuries before your nation even exisited!
Why we succumbed to foreign powers?
Scots had the same level of technology and rural society as the English,
The military forces at the time lacked numbers, leading to defeat.
Medieval politics played a large part in this too.

Wales and Ireland both have relevant and great histories,
to brand them as backward smacks of racism, and lack of knowledge.
Although I can't imagine medieval Europoean studies being
a big hit in good ol' Winnipeg.

I suggest you come down from the dizzying spires of hollywood history and go
and read up on the REAL history.

Not a movie with Mel Gibson...

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by jpowers
Bickering about where European cultural boundaries exist and when they were invented is pointless. For centuries, Europe north of Rome was the holding pen for rejects from the Caucasus and Central Asia. Arguing over how refugees fleeing from the Mongols can be differentiated is silly. Recently, these barbarians have begun to admit their inbreeding has created a beige 'Euro' culture, and they are unifying their currencies and cultures. I recommend Firaxis dump the Celts, Gauls, Vikings, Germans, French, English, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians, Luxembourgers, Basque, Alemanni, Britanni, Gaels, Normas, Saxons, Jutes, Angles, Franks, Slavs, etc etc etc into one bucket 'Euro' culture. The UU can be the 'Delusional Empire Builder' since Europe has provided so many of those, the consequences of which the rest of the world has had to deal for the past 1500 years.

And who populated the USA?
Aliens?

No offence, but as an American, you are among the last nations
on Earth to accuse anyone of empire building!

Quit your off-the-wall racial theorising!
Europe has many colours and cultures, just like the Americas...
That's what makes us interesting...

 

[Mad Hab]

The only thing that bothers me A LOT in Civ III is that the civs are linked with the portraits of the leaders. So, even if I disregard the Zulus, for example, and change everything in the editor to have the Incas, I would still have a Atawallpa that looks like Shaka in negotiations and in the scoring screen, AND THERE'S NO WAY AROUND IT. This way, the leaders that come with the game are VERY important, and Firaxis have done a so-so job (with leaders like Jeanne D'Arc and Cleopatra - they should have kept the Civ II policy of 'two leaders per civ').

That said, I'd rather have the Celts - but if they bring the Gauls, I know my only option will be to exclude them from the games I play...

Cheers!

mad Hab

 

[Damien]

Yes,i Want tools to make civ-like leader portraits too!

 

[Parsifal]

Originally posted by Hamlet


WELSH, SCOTTISH AND IRISH PEOPLE ARE NOT ENGLISH.

THEY ARE WELSH, SCOTTISH, AND IRISH.

ENGLISH CULTURE, SCOTTISH CULTURE, IRISH CULTURE AND WELSH CULTURE ALL DEVELOPED SEPERATELY, AND ARE ALL COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. THEIR PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT, AND OF DIFFERENT HERITAGES. THEY ARE ALL FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT TO EACH OTHER.

HENCE WHY SCOTLAND HAS DIFFERENT DIALECTS, EVOLVED AS A COMPLETELY DEPERATE STATE, HAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LEGAL SYSTEM, AND HAS IT'S OWN PARLIAMENT. IT'S PEOPLE ARE SCOTTISH.

Which part of this do you not understand?

Well Hamlet, since you ask, I don't know what a "DEPERATE STATE" is.

Posted by CurtSibling
I suggest you come down from the dizzying spires of hollywood history and go
and read up on the REAL history.

...What I take offence to is that you make remarks about Scots
Irish and Welsh being, 'backwards'. Get real!
Scotland has achieved nothing?
What about the Scottish inventors, artists, soldiers and pioneers?
Our culture is known the world over, and we mostly supplied and
built the some of greatest naval ships in modern history!

CurtSibling, if you take your own advice, you'll find that other regions of England have done great things too.
I honestly don't see why Scots and Irish (Australians, New Zealanders, etc) are so ashamed of being English...BE PROUD OF IT...BE VERY PROUD OF YOUR ENGLISHNESS.

Although I can't imagine medieval Europoean studies being
a big hit in good ol' Winnipeg.

Pleeeease...just because you're being whipped in a discussion doesn't mean you have to start attacking Canadian towns.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by pompeynunn
Hamlet asked : Why exactly would you include Northern Ireland, yet not the rest of Ireland? Ireland was a part of The British state for a long time, and has only been independant for less than a century.

Northern Ireland has a good chance of flipping back to Irish control within the next few "turns."

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Parsifal
BE VERY PROUD OF YOUR ENGLISHNESS.

Where's the troll police when you need them?

Originally posted by Zachriel
Northern Ireland has a good chance of flipping back to Irish control within the next few "turns."

Only when The Republicans/Catholics outnumber The Unionists/Protestans. Which will probably take another 25 years or so, if not longer.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Hamlet

Only when The Republicans/Catholics outnumber The Unionists/Protestans. Which will probably take another 25 years or so, if not longer.

Most demographers are quoting "less than 20 years." But in any case, they may not flip even then. There are a myriad of possible outcomes that will guarantee political freedom for all the groups involved. Ultimately, it's up to the parties involved.

As far as the game goes, it's just one example of a possible flip, that historically has been a constant worry for the British -- and an indication that the Irish exert a strong cultural influence on part of Britain.

 

[Parsifal]

Originally posted by Hamlet


Where's the troll police when you need them?

Yes Hamlet, highly amusing!

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Parsifal
As for the Scots, Irish and Welsh, as Celtic civs they accomplished nothing other than being too backward to withstand the superior English. The modern Irish, Scots and Welsh (along with the Canadians, Australians, etc,) should be included in the English civ.
They are all English really. It would be much more fun if Dublin, Glasgow, Syndney, Toronto were in the the English city list. Much more realistic too.

and..

Forget Great Britain, a rose by any other name is still a rose. It doesn't have to include US cities, although I suppose it could, but the US is already a separate civ and is the most important power in the world today.

Maybe, but being violent doesn't make them right and me wrong.
All Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Australian, New Zealander, and maybe even Canadian people should throw away their delusions and just accept their Englishness...AND BE PROUD OF IT!!! Everyone else is proud of their nationality.

...and

...the Scottish and Irish parts of England refuse to acknowledge their Englishness. After all, before the Scots and Irish were English, they had very littlle civilization.

I don't know if you genuinely believe what you're saying or trying to wind people up. If you're serious, I think I should point out to you that just because one culture/nation is similar to another, bigger culture doesn't mean that this culture is part of it. It's like saying that because the mini is like a Rolls Royce that...it is a Rolls Royce. The collective word is car, and the collective word for the English, Scots and Irish (not any more perhaps) is British.Yes, the modern Scots and Irish have some similarities with the English, but so do the Americans - and you haven't called them English.

To say that that they achieved nothing without the English is nonsense. The Irish (as Celts) virtually saved Europe from an eternal dark age and the Celtic Church was able to make observations which contradicted those of Rome.

And the achievements of the Scots can be understood without particular reference to any other part of the British Isles. The fact that Scotland has very little confidence in itself is unfortunate and highly unjustified. So are your comments. The intellectual culture that sprouted in Scotland during the Enlightenment had nothing to do with England and the English never experienced any golden age of a similar scale. No cilization - bah!!! Burns, Baird, R.L.Stevenson Duns Scotus, Michael Scott, David Lyndsay, Robert Henryson, William Dunbar, John Buchan, James Hogg, the monumental Walter Scott, Thomas Carlyle, Francis Hutcheson, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, James MacPherson (Ossian), Lord Kames, the legendary Adam Smith, the superlative David Hume, not to mention the scientists and inventors such as Alexander Graham Bell, James Watt, Kirkpatrick MacMillan, Alexander Fleming, James Clerk Maxwell, John Napier, Lord Kelvin and James Hutton. These are just a few. Without the Scots, there would be no social sciences, no Marxism (Scottish Enlightenmet historiography), no televsion, no telephone, no industrial revolution nor many other important things in the modern world. Or at any rate, these things would not have happened as quickly. If you still think the Scots did not achieve much or relied on England for civilization then read the the American historian Arthur Hermann's arguments in:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0609606352/qid=1022549909/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-1364777-0048660

Voltaire said at the height of the Enlightenment that "we all look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilization." He acknowledged what too many people (like you for instance) nowadays forget, Scotland was not only important in its own right as a civilization, it was one of the most important. Just because it never had a big empire like the Mongols or the Huns, doesn't lessen this.

Sorry to bore everyone with this long post, but this is the only way I could respond to someone who claimed so much and said so little.

 

[Marcus Magnus]

Hey, hey, HEY! Aren't we all forgetting how the Irish copied most of the ancient classical works during the dark ages, preserving that knowledge for the modern world? I have a lot of respect for the Irish, Scots, Welsh, and etc... And BTW, I am genetically Spanish, not Irish.

 

[creilly66]

As an American (is that grumbling from the international community?), I'd just like to say that not all of us are as ignorant or stupid as some of you would like to think. I realize that there is a huge difference between Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall and England. So I will not say "be proud of your Englishness." Like someone said in a previous reply, I'd be asking for a punch in the nose. My family is of 100% Irish ancestry, and some older members of my family would probably be offended.

The English = Celtic idea just isn't correct. No similar languages, different geographical starting places, different times of arrival in the Isles, different styles of the Christian Church, music, tradition, etc... Not to mention the conflicts, tension, and ?uneasiness? with each other since the Anglo-Saxon migration. There is no reason to go on.

Which reminds me...Celts or Gauls? <--- Original topic? I forget...